Ed Batista

On Co-Founder Decision-Making

Many of my clients are company founders, and many of them have co-founders. A theme in my work with these clients is the importance of determining how certain decisions should be made. This is an issue that all leaders and executive teams must address, but there are some distinctive aspects of the co-founder relationship that merit special consideration. While this framework is highly reductive, I generally see co-founders relying on the following three methods--and when there's a problem, it's usually because they're relying too heavily on one mode or failing to apply it when it would be useful.

1. Consensus

This is the starting point for co-founders, because all parties had to agree to launch the business in the first place. It's also sometimes the case that in a venture's early stages the co-founders' areas of expertise may overlap substantially, and there may be relatively little hierarchical differentiation, so the other two modes of decision-making are less relevant or inapplicable.

But it's easy for founding teams to get stuck here and rely on consensus for too many decisions well past the point of utility. This is often the result of good intentions--such teams may have a high degree of social cohesion and prioritize inclusivity. And yet cultures like this can have a shadow side--the members may be uncomfortable with conflict, resulting in a lack of candor, or they may have an endless appetite for debate, resulting in circular arguments and paralysis.

The key is recognizing that as the company grows larger and more complex the co-founders' roles and responsibilities will diverge, so members of the team will have differing abilities to weigh in on certain decisions. And yet at the same time some decisions should be made by consensus, even when it would be more expedient to employ an alternative method. This can be codified through formal agreements or mechanisms such as Board seats, but it's not possible to cover every eventuality--there must be a shared willingness to prioritize collective agreement over efficiency when necessary.

2. Functional Expertise

Some co-founders have distinct and clearly defined areas of responsibility to begin with--the possession of complementary skillsets may have been one of the primary reasons for their decision to start a company together. But even when there's a degree of redundancy at first, this tends to diminish over time as individuals focus on particular functions, develop specialized expertise, and "stay in their lanes."

Here, too, co-founders can err in two ways. Some are too rigid about functional boundaries, demanding authority over decisions within their nominal sphere without sufficient regard for cross-functional or downstream implications. And others are insufficiently respectful of such boundaries, constantly questioning their colleagues' judgment and undermining their autonomy.

The arrival of the first non-founder in a designated leadership position tends to have a significant impact here. At later stages of company development this often involves the creation of a C-level role, but even without such a title it's usually the case that this person is being entrusted with a significant scope of responsibilities because of their functional expertise.

This sometimes causes friction between founders who expect to remain actively involved throughout the company and non-founder leaders who expect a degree of independence within their domain. In any case, the solution invariably entails finding the right balance between respect for functional expertise and acknowledgment of cross-functional interdependence.

3. Hierarchical Authority

Even on highly egalitarian founding teams with substantial levels of functional expertise, it's inevitable that some decisions will be made on the basis of hierarchical authority, typically that of the CEO. Contemporary business culture has an uneasy relationship with hierarchy--some parties view it as anathema and propose utopian schemes like holacracy, while others idealize the decisive, command-and-control, autocratic CEO. But in my experience the most successful teams find a middle ground, fostering a healthy respect for hierarchy while ensuring that their leaders rely on it judiciously.

And yet a challenge for many founding teams is that the hierarchical distance separating the co-founders may initially seem minimal or even non-existent. In some cases it was unclear who would be CEO, or more than one member felt qualified to hold the position (and they may still feel that way). Further, as noted above, on many teams the non-CEO co-founders have an equal say in certain decisions by virtue of their ownership positions or other explicit or implicit agreements.

So it can be jarring when a decision must be made and neither consensus nor functional expertise provides a path to resolution. The founder/CEO needs to exert hierarchical authority, and yet there's no guarantee that they have any particular skill in doing so. They may be clumsy and excessively forceful, or they may be hesitant and excessively deferential--whatever the cause, it's quite possible that they'll make missteps and generate frustration.

Here it's essential that all parties recognize both the necessity of hierarchy and the importance of employing it effectively. The CEO needs to learn how to wield authority with skill and grace, cultivating the capacity to influence rather than command. And the other co-founders must come to terms with the limits on their autonomy and learn to truly disagree and commit.

So if you're a co-founder wrestling with these issues, what can you do?

Raise Your Awareness

A first step is raising your collective awareness of your team's norms and preferences around decision-making. Many teams operate on autopilot and are surprised when they stumble into an intractable conflict. You needn't establish cumbersome bureaucratic procedures or give up the freedom to act nimbly. A little time dedicated to identifying the best mode of decision-making before you begin trying to make a given decision can go a long way.

• Work Style Differences
• Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion
• Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene)
• Leadership, Decision-Making and Emotion Management

Enhance Your Skills

Successful team decision-making rests on each member's repertoire of interpersonal skills. These capabilities are eminently learnable, and every leader I've ever encountered had the potential to improve if they were sufficiently motivated to make the effort. Of particular importance on a founding team is the ability to exert influence amidst complex power dynamics.

• Learning How to Learn
• Force Isn't Power
• Power Struggles Among Nice People
• Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

Invest in Your Relationships

Some of the most useful questions I ask clients are, "When did you last see your co-founder/s in person? When did you last have a meal together? When did you last have a conversation about something other than the business?" There's no universal best practice, but it's all too common for co-founders to neglect their personal relationship, even if they were good friends before starting the company. The value of maintaining this connection is a greater sense of trust and the ability to empathize with each other, even (and especially) when you disagree.

• Huddle Up! (Building Group Cohesion)
• Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership
• Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

 

Photos: Handshake by Amtec. Lanes by Steven L. Johnson. Salute by U.S. Army Europe.

Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics

A theme in my practice in recent years is the leader who's aware that a number of their employees have strong feelings about a divisive topic, often a pressing social or political issue. The leader may or may not share these feelings, and the issues may or may not directly affect the business, but there's an evident gap between what people are feeling and what's being openly discussed. And this state of affairs is creating a sense of uncertainty and discomfort within the organization that could affect the team's working relationships and ability to perform.

This presents the leader with some difficult questions: Should we address the issue? Should we discuss our feelings? If so, where and how would we do that? What's the purpose of such a discussion? What are our goals and objectives? What's the agenda, and how should it be determined? And what role should I play in the process? If you're a leader in this situation, here are some areas to explore and recommendations to consider:

1. Risk

People are often reluctant to address divisive topics in a work setting. Sometimes this is a mistake, because the suppressed feelings may leak out in counterproductive ways. And sometimes this is the right decision, because exploring a divisive topic in a group almost always involves some risk. There's the risk of further inflaming heightened emotions, leaving people more upset and distracted than they were before.

There's the risk of failing to reach any sort of resolution in the time available, leaving people feeling incomplete and frustrated. And there's the risk of open conflict between colleagues, who may find their working relationship damaged. This doesn't mean we should avoid directly addressing divisive topics, but it's important to be aware that such efforts carry risks and to have a plan to mitigate them.

2. Resistance

If you're prepared to address these risks, one of the first steps to take is anticipating resistance from your employees, which can range from mild reluctance to outright refusal. Resistance should generally be viewed as a form of self-protection that stems from anxiety, so it's essential to avoid taking any steps that people might experience as coercive. This will only affirm their anxiety and redouble their resistance. Even if people feel obligated to participate in order to appear compliant, they will remain guarded and wary. At best, the discussion will be an empty, superficial exercise, and you will have lost trust in the process.

This doesn't mean that you must always defer to resistance, but you need to meet it with thoughtfulness and care, not force. And it's surprisingly easy for leaders to be perceived as acting more forcefully than they intended. [1] A little social pressure--a "nudge"--is tolerable, but no one should ever feel "shoved" or compelled to participate in ways that make them feel less safe.

3. Safety

The paradox is that talking about the divisive topic may ultimately make it a safer environment, so it can be worth taking the risk to make the effort. The key is ensuring that people feel as safe as possible along the way, although what is meant by "psychological safety" is often profoundly misunderstood, a topic I've addressed before:

Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [2]

A deep-seated problem with many formal programs intended to address divisive topics in recent years is that they mandate a particular point of view on an issue. Participants are expected to adhere to the officially sanctioned doctrine. Questions are viewed as resistance, and resistance isn't tolerated. As a consequence, these events are little more than theatrical performances. They may enforce compliance, but they never build commitment. [3]

4. Intentions

Sometimes it's our intention to enforce compliance--that's why so many mandatory HR programs are designed the way they are. But if you have other goals in mind for this discussion, it's necessary to clarify those intentions and get people aligned around them. Because of past experience with mandatory HR programs, people may assume that the purpose of the discussion is to obtain (or dictate) a group consensus about the issue. Or they might assume that the goal is to problem-solve and recommend a solution.

But neither of these outcomes is feasible for a meaningful discussion on a divisive issue of any consequence. If you want everyone to be in agreement, you'll get hollow HR theater. And if you think you and your employees need to "solve" a weighty social or political issue, you're setting everyone up for failure and frustration. I'm not suggesting you can't accomplish something important--you can. There's a significant goal within reach for you and your team in almost all circumstances: empathy.

5. Empathy

Medical professor and researcher Theresa Wiseman has explored the concept of empathy because of its importance for nursing and healthcare. She identifies four defining attributes of empathy:

• The ability to see the world as another person sees it.
• The ability to understand another person’s feelings.
• The ability to suspend judgment.
• The ability to communicate this understanding, which is essential "if empathy is to be felt." [4]

Note that empathy is not sympathy, which Wiseman makes clear: "Sympathy involves 'feeling sorry' for the other person or imagining how we would feel if we were experiencing what is happening to them. Empathy differs in that we try to imagine what it is like being that person and experiencing things as they do, not as we would." [5] Similarly, empathy is not agreement, a point I've made previously:

We typically associate empathy with agreement, and we act as though empathizing with someone entails endorsing their perspective and their feelings, but this need not be the case. Understanding someone’s perspective and their emotions while suspending our judgments about both does not necessarily imply that we agree with that perspective or believe that the resulting emotions are justified. It simply means that we comprehend their perspective and emotions, and we are able to envision ourselves experiencing that perspective and those emotions under similar circumstances. Just as we can empathize with someone without sympathizing, we can empathize with someone while disagreeing with them and considering their perspective inaccurate and their emotions unwarranted. [6]

6. Emotions

It's inevitable that this will be an emotional discussion. The primary reason you're having it is your awareness that people have strong feelings about this divisive topic that they're not expressing with colleagues, and you're concerned that if people continue to suppress such feelings it may exacerbate the climate of uncertainty and discomfort. But a critical counterpart to emotional expression is the capacity for emotion regulation. [7]

In almost all professional settings we err on the side of regulation--one way of distinguishing between professional and personal relationships is that the former are usually much more regulated than the latter, and this is an essential feature of most organizational cultures. Cultures are defined by behavioral norms, and in this discussion you're likely seeking to alter the norms that govern emotional expression without suspending them entirely. [8]

It's hard to create an environment that simultaneously invites greater emotional expression while supporting the necessary emotion regulation that will allow everyone to return to work when it's over. Hard, but not impossible, and this is why it's so important to mitigate the risks, meet resistance with understanding, and work to ensure safety. These are the conditions under which people are willing to be vulnerable, and expressions of vulnerability in a safe environment are the most reliable means of evoking empathy. [9]

7. An Invitation

If you're ready to proceed, consider the collective capacity of your team to handle such a discussion, and ask your key leaders to share their impressions. If you and your leaders are in sufficient agreement, initiate your efforts by extending an invitation, and asking people if they'd like to join you in a discussion. Make it opt-in and not mandatory, and make it clear that people are truly free to opt out, and that no one is obligated to attend. As I note above, it's fine to "nudge" people to attend, but no one should feel "shoved"--this will make it a safer environment for everyone.

Convey your intentions in this invitation. The goal is not to obtain consensus or to get everyone to agree on any particular position. The goal is not to "solve" the problem. The goal is empathy. This will require people to make disclosures, to explain the world as they see it, and to talk about their feelings. This will require listening to understand those feelings, and the suspension of any judgments that may arise along the way. This will require expressing that understanding, in words that ensure that others feel heard. This will not require agreement. Setting these expectations will help people decide how and whether to participate, and will enable them to aim toward a successful outcome.

8. The Agenda

Consider how you want to develop the agenda. You could simply craft it and present it to your employees--this will be simplest, but it may also be a missed opportunity to build commitment. An alternative could be to invite the most interested members of your team to join you in a working session to co-create the agenda. This will also help ensure that you surface ideas about what people would like to do with the time, rather than simply making assumptions about what they think would be best. Yet another option would be to conduct a survey to gather input. However you determine your agenda, circulate it in advance. This will also help people determine whether and how to participate, and will make it feel safer by giving people visibility into what will happen.

9. Logistics

• Timing: You don't want people to feel rushed, and you don't want it to last too long. An hour is probably the minimum, but two will probably feel taxing--90 minutes may be a good compromise.
• Configurations: Consider having people participate in multiple configurations over the course of the discussion, such as pairs or small groups, in addition to the full group. This is one area in which working virtually on a platform like Zoom offers advantages, because you can move people into pairs or small groups and back into the main room very easily. The pairs and small groups can be assigned in advance, or chosen by the participants, or selected at random, but you'll want people to be prepared for the process.
• Facilitation: The presence of an outside facilitator for such a discussion has pros and cons. They're not a member of the organization, which may make people feel less safe, but they may also be perceived as a source of expertise. Their presence will enable you to participate more freely, but if you're not aligned you may get in each other's way. I encourage clients to consider facilitating such discussions themselves, while recognizing that at times it's valuable to have an experienced partner.

10. Next Steps

Finally, be prepared to think of this as an ongoing dialogue, not necessarily a one-time event. The feelings evoked, both positive and negative, may not be fully resolved in a single session. There may be an appetite, and even a need, to continue the conversation. Consider how much time and energy you'll be able to devote to this effort, if any, beyond an initial discussion.

 

This is a companion piece to Talking With Colleagues About Suffering.

---

Footnotes

[1] The Blue Problem (Communication and Power)

[2] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[3] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[4] A Concept Analysis of Empathy (Theresa Wiseman, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1996)

[5] Ibid.

[6] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[7] The Tyranny of Feelings

[8] Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion

[9] Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership

 

For Further Reading

CONNECTIONS: Meaningful Virtual Conversations

 

Photo by Adam Cohn.

My Appearance with Brenda Bailey-Hughes

Brenda Bailey-Hughes, who teaches at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business, often discusses the importance of empathy with her students, and a mutual colleague referred her to my work on empathy and accountability. Brenda was sufficiently intrigued that she invited me to join her on her LinkedIn Live podcast, and I really enjoyed our hour-long conversation. We covered my definitions of empathy and accountability, as well as the historical origins of the graph below in the work of Douglas McGregor, Jane Mouton and Roger Blake:

Many thanks to Brenda for having me, as well as to her colleague Shelby Merryweather for the technical support.

My Appearance with Daniel and Greg at OnGrowth

Serial entrepreneur Daniel Kivatinos and founder and Stanford PhD Greg Wientjes have hosted the OnGrowth podcast since 2017, and I was honored when they asked me to join them recently. It was a really fun conversation that covered a wide range of topics: my career at Stanford as an MBA student and Lecturer, the launch of my coaching practice, the difference between coaching and therapy, challenges faced by leaders in my practice, and what it's like to work with me. Our 60-minute conversation is available on the following platforms:

• YouTube
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Spotify

Many thanks to Daniel and Greg for having me, and to the mentors and colleagues I mentioned: Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, David Bradford, Evelyn Williams, Garth Saloner, Mary Ann Huckabay, Rebecca Zucker, Ricki Frankel, Scott Bristol, and Vince Stehle. Thanks as well as the 1,000+ Stanford MBAs I had the honor of working with from 2007 to 2021.

Talking with Colleagues About Suffering

A theme in my practice is the leader who's aware or senses that a colleague is suffering and would like to offer support but is unsure how to broach the topic--and a version of this occurs in my own work. In most cases when a client is suffering in some way our coaching sessions provide them with a setting in which they can express those feelings freely. But at times it's clear to me that a client is suffering and yet it's not the focal point of their agenda, or even on the agenda at all.

It's not my place to determine our agenda--that's the client's job--but it's not uncommon for people to want to talk about something while also feeling ambivalent about raising the topic. If I ignore my intuition and defer to their stated agenda, we might miss a meaningful opportunity. And yet the client must always feel a sense of agency in our work together.

It's complicated, but at least I have the benefit of being a coach, and in my relationships with clients it's expected that at times we'll explore troubling and even painful topics. But my clients may not have that kind of social contract with their colleagues, making it hard to know how to proceed when they sense that a co-worker is suffering. If you're in this situation, here are some suggestions:

Take the Initiative

Some people prefer to suffer in private, or they may be reluctant to discuss it with colleagues. They may resist or even resent our efforts to address the topic, and we should be careful to avoid "inflicting help." [1] But most of us tend to err on the side of caution, and while we tell ourselves we're "being sensitive," this also reflects our fear and anxiety. We're afraid that our efforts will be rebuffed, and we'll feel embarrassed. So instead we sit back and wait, hoping that when they need our help they'll ask for it.

Sometimes this is true...and sometimes it's not. The suffering person may in fact feel embarrassed themselves, and they may want us to relieve them of the burden of initiating the conversation. They may wonder if we see their suffering at all, or if we even care. Or they may conclude that this isn't the kind of relationship, or the kind of company, where we talk about such things.

So find the courage to take the initiative. This will be fraught, and it will feel risky, and sometimes you'll get it wrong. But you'll only improve your ability to sense the right time and to find the right language with practice. [2] Extend the invitation, and don't be discouraged if it isn't accepted at first. Try again later. Don't insist--the other person has to feel in control--but by signaling your interest you make it easier for them to respond when they're ready.

Normalize Vulnerability

Acknowledging suffering often evokes a sense of vulnerability in both parties. This is almost certainly true for the person who's suffering, who may believe that such acknowledgment is a form of weakness that will leave them feeling exposed and unsafe. They may worry that they'll be seen as less competent or capable, or that they'll be considered "emotional," a liability in many professional settings.

But this is also likely true for the leader seeking to offer support, particularly when it's unclear if such support will be welcome. The leader may lack experience in having these conversations, or this may be a new frontier in their relationship with this individual. Or the person's suffering may be apparent while the underlying cause is unknown, compounding the leader's uncertainty about whether or how to proceed.

The paradox is that in most settings expressions of vulnerability trigger an empathetic response, a mechanism that may be rooted in our evolutionary psychology. [3] This isn't guaranteed, of course, and it's necessary to take small steps at first and read the signs with care. A starting point is conveying any trepidation you might feel and letting the other person know that it's OK if they feel similarly.

Understand What's Needed

Leaders often rise to their position on the basis of their effectiveness as problem-solvers, and that's an identity as much as a skillset. In some circumstances colleagues are seeking a solution that will solve the problem, but much of the time there's none to be found, or at least not one that the leader can provide. This is certainly true of our greatest difficulties--a grievous illness, the loss of a loved one, a global crisis. [4]

If you find yourself in such a discussion there are many ways to offer useful help and support, but it's important to understand what the other person actually wants. Even when you don't have a definitive solution, they may still value your advice on how to address or think about the problem. But note the tendency of problem-solvers to offer advice, even when it hasn't been asked for.

Before jumping in to share your perspective, be sure to slow down and listen. The experience of truly feeling heard is surprisingly rare in organizational life, where people often listen in order to reply. Put your advice on hold, at least until it's requested, and just be fully present. You may find that this is sufficient.

And you may also find that something more is called for, even--and perhaps especially--when there's no advice to give and listening isn't enough. The other person may simply need a literal or virtual hug, which can be daunting territory to navigate in organizational life. While it's essential to be aware of and respect another person's boundaries, we can be so cautious about avoiding offense that we inadvertently appear callous. Tone of voice and body language can go a long way toward expressing the sentiment. A murmur, a sigh, a moment of silence, or holding our hand to our chest can speak volumes.

Why Bother?

All of this work is easier if we take steps early in our professional relationships to lay a foundation for more meaningful dialogue later on. One of the most straightforward ways for a leader to accomplish this is by scheduling regular one-on-ones with direct reports, honoring that commitment by minimizing cancellations or rescheduling, and ensuring that employees feel a sense of ownership over the agenda. [5] And yet it will still require effort and a modicum of risk, and a leader may well ask, Why bother?

One very pragmatic reason is that people who are suffering are incapable of doing their best work. They may be in the grip of a threat response, aka a "fight, flight or freeze response," which will impair creative thinking and render them more risk-averse and prone to distraction. [6] Talking about their distress and anxiety can play a significant role in helping them manage these feelings, enabling them to redirect their focus to other matters. [7]

I would add that our professional relationships have the potential to be sources of belonging and connection [8], not merely vehicles for value creation, and we realize this potential fully only when we're willing to have hard conversations. This doesn't mean that companies are "families"--I agree with Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke that this is an inappropriate metaphor, and that colleagues are best-served by viewing each other as fellow members of an elite team who earn their positions by virtue of their performance. [9]

Cultivating the ability to have hard conversations about suffering develops a set of skills that are equally valuable in hard conversations about performance: the courage to speak up, a sense for the right timing and the right language, comfort with vulnerability. This is yet another reason why "accountability and empathy are not mutually exclusive." [10]

 

This is a companion piece to Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics.

---

Footnotes

[1] Inflicting Help

[2] Conscious Competence in Practice

[3] Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (Dacher Keltner interviewed by David DiSalvo, Scientific American, 2009)

[4] This section is adapted from What Do You Need Right Now? (Advice, Listening, A Hug?).

[5] How to Have Better One-on-Ones

[6] Neuroscience, Leadership and David Rock's SCARF Model

[7] Talking About Feelings

[8] Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

[9] Shopify CEO email to managers: We are not a family (Tobias Lütke, internal email, 2020, shared by Lukas Naugle, LinkedIn, 2021)

[10] Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)

 

Photo by Christopher Matson.